|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 23 2016, 12:58pm
Post #76 of 118
(594 views)
Shortcut
|
I have no desire to defend Avnar, but the nudity in the book is not for comic effect and does not take place in an elven fountain. I'm sure that Elrond's folk in Rivendell would have been perfectly willing to draw baths for Thorin's company. Nudity is nudity no matter if it is for comedy or not, Avnar did just say nudity, nothing about comic effect. He complained that PJ had nudity in the film, I just said there was nudity in the book as well.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 23 2016, 1:00pm
Post #77 of 118
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
But what Avnar was complaining about was the cartoonishness of the films, not merely the presence of nudity.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 23 2016, 1:32pm
Post #78 of 118
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This reminds me of 2001 all over again.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
May I remind you of the snot and fart jokes and Arwen's sheer nightie in FotR?
Gimli's burping and wiping his mouth on his beard in TTT.
etc.
Peter Jackson thinks these kinds of things are funny and makes no bones about it. Such things are not to my taste in a Tolkien movie, but that's my problem.
If you are going to make statements like the movies are crap and we all know it in our hearts, then you have to expect people like dormouse, and me, who like the movies, to post rebuttals.
What I don't get is why some of you think the LotR movies are perfect and so different from LotR. I don't see the two trilogies as that different and have many of the same criticisms of both. Were some of you eight or fourteen when you saw LotR and were so blown away that you never got over it? That is a genuine question.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 23 2016, 3:55pm
Post #79 of 118
(574 views)
Shortcut
|
You see, what probably happened was that the Academy probably reasoned that PJ had already had his day in the sun, and decided its only fair to give the awards to someone else this year....either that, or they were just really horrible movies.
The former I think.
2004(?), when RotK cleaned up, was the first time in many years that I had watched the AA show, and the last time. In my opinion RotK was not necessarily the best picture of the year but the Oscars are not so much about quality as politics and sometimes recognizing a phenomenon. Titanic was a phenomenon and so was the LotR trilogy.
I was glad that RotK won for the sakes of Peter Jackson and all the other people who made those movies happen because such things likely mean a lot to them personally and professionally. But even back then I thought that the awards were as much for the staggering achievement of getting the three movies made and the innovations involved as for their high quality.
In truth The Hobbit trilogy was not as innovative as LotR was or unique in the same way. Also, as far as the greater world was concerned, Peter Jackson was repeating himself, “going back to the same well” and had run out of creative juice simply by making these movies. All those things were said in the media before AUJ was released. Why would they reward Peter Jackson for that, even if it was a misperception.
So, in my opinion, regardless of their quality or lack thereof, The Hobbit movies were never going to be as well received as LotR had been, Times had changed.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 23 2016, 5:45pm
Post #80 of 118
(550 views)
Shortcut
|
Except I believe "RotK" was definitively the best film of '03 ("Lost in Translation" was close, though). It was also one of the rare occasions where the best picture actually won Best Picture and hasn't happened since.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
KW
Rivendell
Feb 23 2016, 7:33pm
Post #81 of 118
(549 views)
Shortcut
|
We shouldn't put words in other peoples mouths or imagine positions for them.
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=896840#896840
Also, as far as the greater world was concerned, Peter Jackson was repeating himself, “going back to the same well” and had run out of creative juice simply by making these movies. All those things were said in the media before AUJ was released. Why would they reward Peter Jackson for that, even if it was a misperception.
Like say, 1)attributing an opinion to "the greater world" and then 2) further linking that opinion specifically to awards judges.
I also agree with Noria that "Anecdotal evidence is worthless, except for getting validation for one’s own opinions."
Like when someone makes sweeping generalizations about what the "greater world" thought based on what some folks "in the media" said.
Which is to say that I disagree with Noria.
Then again, while I agree with Avnar that the films don't have much merit I disagree with Avnar that awards and bargain bins have much to say on that matter. I also disagree with the false choice that Noria was responding to.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Feb 23 2016, 9:48pm
Post #82 of 118
(527 views)
Shortcut
|
Both those films are at least 15+ years old (I think The Princess Bride is much older actually) BUT the Hobbit cartoons are only a few years old and are already relegated to the sale bins because they just...aren't...any...good. Re what seems to be a firm dismissal of the Hobbit films being "on sale", that compared to 10-15 years ago, the journey from theater to home viewing is far faster. It's a reason I personally am pretty choosy about even bothering to go to a theater - why bother unless the movie IMO is REALLY worth it? It's not like I'm going to be waiting months and months. That rapid-fire trip from theater to home viewing is another reason why opening weekend for any film is so important (as it is, I was surprised and pretty happy that the Hobbit films held at our local IMAX theaters as long as they did. That movie about some guy walking across some buildings lasted one weekend at the IMAX and got pulled).
Not only were the Hobbit films top box office, they were also top sellers as BR/DVD. IMO comparing sales and even awards from 10 years ago doesn't compute, because the world changed a lot in that time. I don't think pirating was as rampant either.
*Shrug* if you don't like the movies that's fine. There's plenty in LOTR I wish had been done differently. There's stuff in the Hobbit I wish had been done differently.
Just sayin' the Hobbit films are the first movies I ever had to get to a store to for a disk release, because the collector sets would all be gone by that evening. Otherwise I had to go online (and I don't need another account registration). And I don't usually pay full price for films either. There's also not that many films I actually want to watch over and over. In any case, I haven't paid attention to whether the Hobbit films are on sale or LOTR is.
Because I'm waiting for the as-yet mythical mega-director cut of the Hobbit, which I would bet a week's salary would also be a top seller. Meanwhile, if I can find a good sale, I might pick up LOTR on BR. 
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Feb 23 2016, 10:15pm
Post #83 of 118
(523 views)
Shortcut
|
and glad someone mentioned:
In truth The Hobbit trilogy was not as innovative as LotR was or unique in the same way. Also, as far as the greater world was concerned, Peter Jackson was repeating himself, “going back to the same well” and had run out of creative juice simply by making these movies. All those things were said in the media before AUJ was released. Why would they reward Peter Jackson for that, even if it was a misperception.
So, in my opinion, regardless of their quality or lack thereof, The Hobbit movies were never going to be as well received as LotR had been, Times had changed.
Because re this:
Like when someone makes sweeping generalizations about what the "greater world" thought based on what some folks "in the media" said.
I don't what Noria said IS a "sweeping generalization". A spreadsheet and matrix chart could be developed and statistics run based against a collection of media statements, and one could analyze all those media comments, and in the end IMO any summation of results would indicate, pretty much, what Noria has stated. Which I personally agree with.
The thrill of Legolas or Elrond being in these films was because we know these characters from LOTR. There were the *snark* comments about PJ just doing the Hobbit "for the money" (didn't matter if the man was already quite comfortable) and/or because his other films hadn't been as popular as LOTR. The locations might have changed, but it's still Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth. Which may have made some folks happy, but others not so much.
Which, considering the imagination of the Hobbit films, and the IMO stellar performances, is a shame , although the Hobbit movies are such a success. I suspect the upcoming POTC 5 may run into the same kind of "been there, done that"; "milking the franchise" attitude which is why Disney IMO wisely let a lot of time go by between #4 and #5. Even then the more *snark* media types will probably go into review the film with their knives sharpened, no matter how good the film is.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Feb 23 2016, 10:56pm
Post #84 of 118
(509 views)
Shortcut
|
Oh, there's another point that is a factor, yes. Pirating of movies still out in theater and on home release is a big thing, and it wasn't nearly as easy and good-quality 10+ years ago. Then there is the decreased theater to home time. These times, they are changing.
What is still kind of the same is that we're in a home viewing format transition, like we were then. dvd to bluray now. vhs to dvd then. My friend has the FOTR vhs tape (theatrical edition). Would the finding of those vhs in bargain bins a few years after LOTR came out mean people weren't buying it? No, it means they were buying it on the new technology and format of dvd.
I suppose I'm a bit like you, in that I only go see 3 or less movies in theater a year (and most of that is because family wants to when I'm visiting them), and I buy them on bluray afterwards even less, even if I did like it. I'm not overall a movie person, though I do find the various creative parts of the industry very interesting.
I got the collector's extended bluray edition of LOTR on amazon for 50$ last summer, though it's 70$ now on there...
|
|
|
Jeffrodo
Bree
Feb 24 2016, 2:49am
Post #85 of 118
(494 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you delight in being miserable? Why would you read posts or even write posts about movies you dislike? Or spend any time thinking about those of us who like these films? Doesn't make sense to me. Go somewhere that makes you happy! I love The Hobbit. I don't know if I'm a sheep, but I'm sure happy and enjoy these films. I also love talking about them with like minded people, so if that makes me a sheep I'll be a sheep.
BAAA!!! BAAAAAA!!!!
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:04am
Post #86 of 118
(489 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I still think being a sheep on this issue
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Would mean having a handful of nitpicks that completely soured all the movies for me, but if loving these films makes me one, it feels great being a sheep with this much independence and freedom.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:19am
Post #87 of 118
(483 views)
Shortcut
|
I have never seen the last movie so I wasn't aware of any nude scene...but I looked it up on youtube and the only question i have is why would they shoot the entire thing in cgi? It just looks completely unnatural and strange...wouldnt it have been easier, and cheaper for PJ to say "Ok dwarves in this next scene I need you to pull down your pants and frolic in this fountain."?
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:26am
Post #88 of 118
(479 views)
Shortcut
|
Among other things (the stunts a few of them are doing).
Oddly felt more appropriate all CGI for me.
Probably because of the nudity control.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
(This post was edited by Altaira on Feb 25 2016, 12:15am)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:29am
Post #89 of 118
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess i can understand that...but couldn't they have just cgi'd over certain body parts and controlled them that way?
(This post was edited by Altaira on Feb 25 2016, 12:16am)
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:32am
Post #90 of 118
(473 views)
Shortcut
|
Not have the scene at all because it appeals to imbeciles...
I am no prude - But nudity in Middle Earth?? Good lord...
(This post was edited by Avnar on Feb 24 2016, 3:34am)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:35am
Post #91 of 118
(466 views)
Shortcut
|
Even Gollum had the decency to keep his twig and berries concealed behind a rag.
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:43am
Post #92 of 118
(460 views)
Shortcut
|
...there was someone there to say NO to PJ! He seriously needed people to challenge him with these films but because of the success of LOTRS he could just use the old "Trust me" and they would cave. He had done it before (made fantastic films) he could do it agin! Or so they thought... 
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:51am
Post #93 of 118
(458 views)
Shortcut
|
I imagine there were people working on the set who would have liked to say something but didn't have the nerve. I always wondered what John Howe and Alan Lee thought about all the un-Tolkienlike additions being that they have a far longer history working in Middle-earth. And Christopher Lee who was a lifelong fan of Tolkien.
(This post was edited by wizzardly on Feb 24 2016, 3:53am)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 3:51am
Post #94 of 118
(462 views)
Shortcut
|
I can see where you're coming from and I agree/disagree with you at the same time many people, like myself, think the hobbit looks far less realistic than lotr especially in terms of CGI. Is that because we've been spoiled with films that we would consider to look more realistic? Maybe so. But the thing is, if it's anything that has "spoiled" us, it's the LOTR trilogy itself. People like me, think LOTR did a fantastic job with its CGI and other effects being blended so well that it presented a very realistic world. And that's part of our problem. Why is it that the hobbit ended up looking so much worse after being made so many years later? We know its possible to shoot fantastic things and make them look realistic. We saw that in LOTR. So why wasn't this the case with the hobbit? All in our opinion of course.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 24 2016, 4:12am
Post #95 of 118
(450 views)
Shortcut
|
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 4:16am
Post #96 of 118
(448 views)
Shortcut
|
I didnt see the extendeds either. Either way...nude cgi dwarves are creepy.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 24 2016, 4:26am
Post #97 of 118
(448 views)
Shortcut
|
I am no prude - But nudity in Middle Earth?? Good lord...
Apparently Tolkien didn't feel that way.
From The Hobbit:
After that they stopped pleading. Then they took off their clothes and bathed in the river, which was shallow and clear and stony at the ford.
From The Two Towers:
'Naked I was sent back--for a brief time, until my task is done. And naked I lay upon the mountaintop.'
Nudity in Middle-earth indeed! 
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 24 2016, 4:28am)
|
|
|
No One in Particular
Lorien
Feb 24 2016, 4:36am
Post #98 of 118
(443 views)
Shortcut
|
Does my aged memory deceive me, or didn't Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin run naked on the grass for a bit after Tom rescued them from the Barrow Wight, while he fetched the ponies?
While you live, shine
Have no grief at all
Life exists only for a short while
And time demands an end.
Seikilos Epitaph
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 24 2016, 4:37am
Post #99 of 118
(439 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But don't you see, Otaku-sempai?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the books it's melancholy nudity; in the films it's playful, happy nudity. Big difference.
If someone's going to be nude in Middle-earth, then they sure as hell better be upset or contemplating something.
"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 24 2016, 4:47am
Post #100 of 118
(433 views)
Shortcut
|
Does my aged memory deceive me, or didn't Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin run naked on the grass for a bit after Tom rescued them from the Barrow Wight, while he fetched the ponies?
I'm not sure that they actually did any running, but the hobbits did have to wait for Tom to retrieve their ponies to put on new clothes.
And there is The Return of the King when Sam found Frodo naked in the Tower of Cirith Ungol.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
|
|
